Why I Voted For Trump...

[Cow Poke]

"HONEST liberals" being those that agree with you, of course.

Let's look again at the actual citations of some notable liberal legal experts...

"Blackmun's [ Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference."

" Unbecoming Justice Blackmun," Legal Affairs, May/June 2005.

Roe "is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply."

" Letting Go of Roe," The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2005.

Now, rather than just spew forth ignorance and false accusations, how bout actually trying to defend the merits of RvW with something beyond "Well, gosh golly, it was 7-2!!!!!"

I'll wait.

[Tassman]

Let's look again at the actual citations of some:

[snipped]

Now, rather than just spew forth ignorance and false accusations, how bout actually trying to defend the merits of RvW with something beyond "Well, gosh golly, it was 7-2!!!!!"

he said,
In short, the rights of the mother to choose.

[Cow Poke]

There is no disputing that SOME legal experts disagree with the Roe v Wade decision....

Wow, that's quite an admission, Tass.

Now, perhaps you can bring yourself to admit that these are actually LIBERAL experts who happen to be FOR abortion, but recognize the decision itself was CRAP.

THEN you can continue your psychotic war on Southern Baptists.

[JimL]

Wow, that's quite an admission, Tass.

Now, perhaps you can bring yourself to admit that these are actually LIBERAL experts who happen to be FOR abortion, but recognize the decision itself was CRAP.

THEN you can continue your psychotic war on Southern Baptists.

And perhaps you could do the same in reverse. His point is that it's controversial, but a 7 to 2 ruling.

[Cow Poke]

And perhaps you could do the same in reverse. His point is that it's controversial, but a 7 to 2 ruling.

Not understanding that second sentence. You realize that other really bad decisions by SCOTUS have been 8-1 or by total majority?

[JimL]

Not understanding that second sentence. You realize that other really bad decisions by SCOTUS have been 8-1 or by total majority?

Well, the thing is that there are controversial rulings in that not everyone agrees with either the reasoning or the decision. I'm sure that scholars can be found to support either side of the issue. That's what I meant by there were 7 who obviously agreed with it as opposed to 2 who dissented.

[Cow Poke]

Well, the thing is that there are controversial rulings in that not everyone agrees with either the reasoning or the decision. I'm sure that scholars can be found to support either side of the issue. That's what I meant by there were 7 who obviously agreed with it as opposed to 2 who dissented.

But you could use that same reasoning where some decisions you would most certainly oppose (I would think) were, at the time, majority (or even unanimous) decisions.

Tassman has been parroting "it's the law of the land" -- that would really hold some weight if it weren't MADE the "law of the land" on a totally made up basis.

[JimL]

But you could use that same reasoning where some decisions you would most certainly oppose (I would think) were, at the time, majority (or even unanimous) decisions.

Tassman has been parroting "it's the law of the land" -- that would really hold some weight if it weren't MADE the "law of the land" on a totally made up basis.

Again, the point is that what you and others are calling made up, is your and their interpretation, others obviously disagree that it is made up.

[Tassman]

Wow, that's quite an admission, Tass.

Now, perhaps you can bring yourself to admit that these are actually LIBERAL experts who happen to be FOR abortion, but recognize the decision itself was CRAP.

[Terraceth]

A few issues here.
1) Except for perhaps John Paul Stevens, I do not think any justice who was appointed after the decision is in agreement with the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. Planned Parenthood v. Casey kept the "right to an abortion" around but modified it considerably, throwing out the trimester framework that was practically the hallmark of Roe v. Wade. No justice since then has, as far as I know, ever suggested abandoning the rules in Casey in favor of returning to the original Roe v. Wade.

As for Ginsburg, I'm curious as to what your source on the claim that she felt Roe v. Wade didn't go far enough was. One of her criticisms of Roe v. Wade was that she thought it went too far too fast. To my knowledge, she has expressed no dissatisfaction with Casey's rules concerning the matter, which were a step back from the original Roe v. Wade.

[Tassman]

A few issues here.
1) Except for perhaps John Paul Stevens, I do not think any justice who was appointed after the decision is in agreement with the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. Planned Parenthood v. Casey kept the "right to an abortion" around but modified it considerably, throwing out the trimester framework that was practically the hallmark of Roe v. Wade. No justice since then has, as far as I know, ever suggested abandoning the rules in Casey in favor of returning to the original Roe v. Wade.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade

As for Ginsburg, I'm curious as to what your source on the claim that she felt Roe v. Wade didn't go far enough was. One of her criticisms of Roe v. Wade was that she thought it went too far too fast. To my knowledge, she has expressed no dissatisfaction with Casey's rules concerning the matter, which were a step back from the original Roe v. Wade.

https://time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-...rg-roe-v-wade/

[Terraceth]

https://time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-...rg-roe-v-wade/

Except that's not supporting what you claimed, that she didn't think Roe v. Wade went far enough; you have to read assumptions into it to get to that. In fact, that article quotes her as saying she thought it went too far--granted, her judgment on that seems to be more one of prudence than anything else, but you're not supporting your claim that she thought Roe v. Wade didn't go far enough.

[JimL]

A few issues here.
1) Except for perhaps John Paul Stevens, I do not think any justice who was appointed after the decision is in agreement with the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. Planned Parenthood v. Casey kept the "right to an abortion" around but modified it considerably, throwing out the trimester framework that was practically the hallmark of Roe v. Wade. No justice since then has, as far as I know, ever suggested abandoning the rules in Casey in favor of returning to the original Roe v. Wade.

As for Ginsburg, I'm curious as to what your source on the claim that she felt Roe v. Wade didn't go far enough was. One of her criticisms of Roe v. Wade was that she thought it went too far too fast. To my knowledge, she has expressed no dissatisfaction with Casey's rules concerning the matter, which were a step back from the original Roe v. Wade.

I wouldn't say that the trimester framework was the hallmark of R v W., that a woman has the fundemental right to choose was. The Casey decision, afaics, basically, simply moved the stage of fetal viability from 28 weeks to 24 weeks.

[Cow Poke]

Again, the point is that what you and others are calling made up, is your and their interpretation, others obviously disagree that it is made up.

Please provide a single legal expert who defends Roe v Wade as based on sound reasoning and actual legal principles.

[JimL]

Please provide a single legal expert who defends Roe v Wade as based on sound reasoning and actual legal principles.

How about the 7 that came to that decision.